You can have opinion (and hope, and aspiration) or you can have facts. Benedict Evans, at Enders Analysis, has just trawled through all the data of newspaper finances present and future – and he has concluded that one current print reader is worth four times as much as any prospective online website reader.

Even when you've killed all the forests and lugged them around the country, the old combination of cover price and advertising revenue comes out on top, it seems. Put up a paywall, as the Times has done, and subscription money (with concomitant advertising decline) fills only a quarter of the gap. And if you forget paywalls and concentrate on advertising alone, the gap is just as big, if not even bigger.

Too glum? Wall climbers and advertising directors would both say "yes" to that, I guess: but try an absolutely new Deloitte report, based on a 2,000-strong YouGov survey. The pollsters asked which advertising medium has the greatest impact. Answer: TV at 56%. Newspapers were on 30%, magazines 17%, and radio 15%, with posters, leaflets and cinema slotting in behind.

Online advertising, from banners to videos, floats in at 3% and 1% respectively. Ads on iPhones and iPads are other one-percenters. It may be a growth area. It may be a sector that advertising agencies themselves like to talk up during an economic downturn. It may find ways of matching TV and print for brand-building and display somewhere down the line. But it is not a game-changer: and Evans seems to doubt whether it ever can be. More space – going on infinity – to fill: less revenue attached: fewer bangs for the buck.

And if you don't like that particular array of facts, you better nip out quick and find some more.